MormonTest.com

For those called to oversee a stake's satellite receivers, computers, and other audiovisual equipment, the Stake Technology Specialist Web site provides troubleshooting articles, a glossary of terms, and other helpful resources.  

For those called to oversee a stake's satellite receivers, computers, and other audiovisual equipment, the Stake Technology Specialist Web site provides troubleshooting articles, a glossary of terms, and other helpful resources.  

The total prohibition of oaths (Mt. 5.34-37) come from the historical Jesus. The criterion of discontinuity argues that there is no parallel to Jesus' total prohibition of oaths in the Jewish Scriptures, the intertestamental literature prior to 70 CE, or the New Testament. The Jewish Scriptures take oaths for granted and impose them in a few cases. Apart from Jas 5.12, the New Tetsament knows of no prohibition; Paul uses oaths with abandon. The criterion of multiple attestation argues that Jas 5.12 represents an independent tradition of the prohibition; Jas 5.12 is parallel to Mt. 5.34-37 in both content and structure; James has other examples of Jesus' sayings woven into his epistle without attribution; and Jas 5.12 is at odds with James's treatment of the Law in the rest of his epistle. Hence Jas 5.12 qualifies as an independent witness to an isolated stream of oral tradition preserving Jesus' prohibition. This is Part 1 of a two-part essay.

The interpretation of the synoptic Son of Man is still a formidable swamp with no consensus emerging. Unfortunately, one of the most interesting suggestions, the collective interpretation of Manson, Moule and Gaston, has been somehow left by the wayside. It has certain advantages, however, in respecting both the basic `generic' sense of an underlying Semitic expression and the Danielic kingdom imagery, without denying this expression for the historical Jesus. The present article focuses on the coming Son of Man sayings and demonstrates the plausibility of applying a collective interpretation to them. The result is an eschatology, focusing not on an individual redeemer figure, but on the manifestation of the Kingdom in community practice. Some suggestions are offered for how such an eschatology, based on a collective interpretation of the coming Son of Man, could `mutate' so quickly into the idea of a second coming of Christ.

Distinguishing between insider and outsider groups and their differing nomenclatures is essential for accurate interpretation and translation. Jesus and his earliest followers, evidence demonstrates, were called `Israelites', `Galileans' or `Nazoreans' by their fellow Israelites. `Israel', `Israelites' were the preferred terms of self-designation among members of the house of Israel when addressing other members—not `'Ioo', `Jew' or `Judaism'. Modern interpreters and translators of the Bible, it is argued, should respect and follow this insider preference. 'Ioo , an outsider coinage, is best rendered `Judaean', not `Jew', to reflect the explicit or implied connection with Judaea. It was employed by Israelites when addressing outsiders as an accommodation to outsider usage. The concepts `Jew', `Jewish' and `Christian' as understood today are shaped more by fourth century rather than first-century CE realities and hence should be avoided as anachronistic designations for first-century persons or groups. Use of `Christian' is best restricted to its three NT appearances. The use of appropriate nomenclature is crucial for minimizing historical and social inaccuracies and misunderstandings.